Same motive = same killer

[Sam Flynn]

Well, he says the two lower pieces of the trunk, which to me must mean the pelvic section and the costal-arch section. No?

Ah, I see what you mean, but the "costal-arch section" (as you put it) extended all the way down to the pelvis, so a wound in that section which started around the level of the navel and extending down to the genitalia would still fit Hebbert's description of traversing the two lower pieces of the trunk; there's nothing here to indicate that the wounds extended as high as the costal arch.

[Fisherman]

Ah, I see what you mean, but the "costal-arch section" (as you put it) extended all the way down to the pelvis, so a wound in that section which started around the level of the navel and extending down to the genitalia would still fit Hebbert's description of traversing the two lower pieces of the trunk; there's nothing here to indicate that the wounds extended as high as the costal arch.

"The second part of the trunk included both breasts and the upper part of the abdomen".

The first part was opened up through the sternum, and Hebbert goes on to say that the second part of the trunk "had also been opened up down the centre of the sternum".

So there was an opening made all the way down, Gareth. And the second part of the trunk went all the way up to above the upper abdomen. It was included, as were the breasts.

Where the flaps commenced is another matter, but there was a long gash from over the breast region, cutting the sternum in two and travelling all the way down. It is totally similar to what happened to the Rainham victim, by the way - but for the flaps.

[Fisherman]

I cannot find it saying that the flaps did not extend all the way up to the upper abdomen (which we know was included in the second part of the trunk). Hebbert says what the flaps included (umbillicus, mons veneris etc.), but does he say anywhere that they were only spanning the lower abdomen?
He says that the flaps were taken from the abdominal walls, not the lower abdominal walls.

I seem to remember that an argument has been made that they only reached to the umbillicus area or thereabouts, but I can´t find that information now.

Can somebody help out?

[Sam Flynn]

"The second part of the trunk included both breasts and the upper part of the abdomen".

The first part was opened up through the sternum, and Hebbert goes on to say that the second part of the trunk "had also been opened up down the centre of the sternum.

You must have misunderstood. Unless the sternum had been cut laterally in half, or she had two sternums (one in section A and one in section B), there's no way the sternum could have been "opened up down the centre of the sternum" in two sections of the trunk.

Besides, we have this:

"The ribs from the fourth downward were present ; the lower border showed a clearly defined skin margin from the back at the junction of the third and fourth lumbar vertebrae to a point an inch and a half above the umbilicus on the left side, and a point just below the umbilicus on the right side"

A clearly defined margin indicates that the flesh was cut continuously from the vertebrae to an inch and a half above the navel on the left, and a little lower on the right. This describes the lower boundary of the cut that detached the thorax and upper abdomen (still with liver and pancreas in place) from the section of the lower abdomen from which the two slips of flesh were cut.

This gives us an upper bound for the extent of the two slips of flesh, i.e. 1.5 inches above the navel on the left.

[Joshua Rogan]

You must have misunderstood. Unless the sternum had been cut laterally in half, or she had two sternums (one in section A and one in section B), there's no way the sternum could have been "opened up down the centre of the sternum" in two sections of the trunk.

Besides, we have this:

"The ribs from the fourth downward were present ; the lower border showed a clearly defined skin margin from the back at the junction of the third and fourth lumbar vertebrae to a point an inch and a half above the umbilicus on the left side, and a point just below the umbilicus on the right side"

A clearly defined margin indicates that the flesh was cut continuously from the vertebrae to an inch and a half above the navel on the left, and a little lower on the right. This describes the lower boundary of the cut that detached the thorax and upper abdomen (still with liver and pancreas in place) from the section of the lower abdomen from which the two slips of flesh were cut.

This gives us an upper bound for the extent of the two slips of flesh, i.e. 1.5 inches above the navel on the left.

I'm not sure that's correct, Sam. Since the outer edges of the abdominal strips matched both pieces of trunk laterally, this suggests that they carried on vertically beyond the horizontal (ish) division line, and hence the strips were removed before the trunk was cut into three (or at least before the lower two parts were divided). The lack of any mention of a "skin margin" at the front could also be taken as an indication that there was none, ie the edges of the flaps coincided with the costal arch. But we can't know for sure. Probably.

Also, my reading is that the sternum was divided both vertically and horizontally. So effectively quartered.

[Fisherman]

You must have misunderstood. Unless the sternum had been cut laterally in half, or she had two sternums (one in section A and one in section B), there's no way the sternum could have been "opened up down the centre of the sternum" in two sections of the trunk.

Misunderstood? Hebbert says about the first part of the trunk that "the chest had been opened in front by the mid-line. The upper part of the sternum cut through and the contents of the chest had been removed."

So the sternum was cut through there.

The second part of the trunk (the one involving both breasts and the upper abdomen) was described: "The upper surface of this portion exactly fitted the lower surface of the former part. It had also been opened down the centre of the sternum."

I read that to say that the two parts were divided at the sternum horisontally, and that the sternum parts, one upper and one lower, were in both parts cut open vertically.

Hebbert also says about the first part: "This part was separated from the trunk below at the junction of the seventh and eight dorsal vertebrae". That seems to speak for a division at the sternum, no?

Besides, we have this:

"The ribs from the fourth downward were present ; the lower border showed a clearly defined skin margin from the back at the junction of the third and fourth lumbar vertebrae to a point an inch and a half above the umbilicus on the left side, and a point just below the umbilicus on the right side"

A clearly defined margin indicates that the flesh was cut continuously from the vertebrae to an inch and a half above the navel on the left, and a little lower on the right. This describes the lower boundary of the cut that detached the thorax and upper abdomen (still with liver and pancreas in place) from the section of the lower abdomen from which the two slips of flesh were cut.

This gives us an upper bound for the extent of the two slips of flesh, i.e. 1.5 inches above the navel on the left.

Yes, but this line was surpassed by the flaps, travelling upwards into the middle (second section). Thgis is all about how far up they may have travelled, Gareth. The flaps were cut from lower and the middle section. Hebbert says so.

[Sam Flynn]

I'm not sure that's correct, Sam. Since the outer edges of the abdominal strips matched both pieces of trunk laterally, this suggests that they carried on vertically beyond the horizontal (ish) division line

Even vertical cuts have a lateral aspect, unless they occupied a one-dimensional space, which is obviously not the case.

Also, my reading is that the sternum was divided both vertically and horizontally. So effectively quartered.

I'll get back to you on that, maybe.

[Sam Flynn]

Fisherman, however many pieces of sternum there were, they were in the thoracic portions of the trunk. The fact that they were cut through can have no bearing whatsoever with what happened in the lower abdomen. The way you're banging on makes it sound like she was split all the way down the middle like a baguette, which clearly didn't happen.

[Abby Normal]

I made my reply to Trevor last night via email as he sent me Dr Biggs reply the same way before he posted it to the boards.

I pointed out exactly the same things that Fisherman just has; that Dr Biggs is basically saying that it would be difficult to tell which cuts were made for practical reasons and which could be regarded as mutilation for 'fun.' but that cutting away flaps of flesh from the abdomen would constitute unnecessary cutting for no practical reason, other than the perpetrator thought that necessary to access the abdomen..

Regarding the removal of the limbs through the joints; I think Dr Biggs made a good point that removal through the joints would have been the quicker alternative in the LVP without the aid of power saws to cut directly through the bone and so may have been more common.
Nowadays removal of limbs through joints may be less common than sawing limbs off, so Dr Rutty's observation that limb removal through the joint may suggest someone accustomed to cutting up animals like a butcher makes sense in that context.

I have read chapters of the book Dr Biggs recommends. There is a chapter in there on the torso cases but the historian who wrote the summary of some of the cases didn't go in to very much details and didn't mention all the cases 87-89. He also used Mei Trow's book as a source.


Thanks Trevor and Dr Biggs.

Hi Debs
Thanks!

I have read chapters of the book Dr Biggs recommends. There is a chapter in there on the torso cases but the historian who wrote the summary of some of the cases didn't go in to very much details and didn't mention all the cases 87-89. He also used Mei Trow's book as a source.

well that's disheartening.

[Abby Normal]

someone write the dam book! ; )

[Joshua Rogan]

Fisherman, however many pieces of sternum there were, they were in the thoracic portions of the trunk. The fact that they were cut through can have no bearing whatsoever with what happened in the lower abdomen. The way you're banging on makes it sound like she was split all the way down the middle like a baguette, which clearly didn't happen.

She clearly was opened up this way, but just not necessarily all at once. I think it would be very difficult to cut (or saw; does Hebbert say how it was done?) the sternum vertically in two before any other cuts, so feel it likely that this was the last cut (or two cuts) after the torso was divided into three. Which would mean after the abdominal flap removal.
Just a hunch though.

[Joshua Rogan]

Even vertical cuts have a lateral aspect, unless they occupied a one-dimensional space, which is obviously not the case.

Yes, I'm not saying anything about the width here, just that they extended across both lower torso sections. And so I feel that 1 1/2" above the umbillicus is the minimum vertical extent, not the maximum.

[Sam Flynn]

She clearly was opened up this way, but just not necessarily all at once

Sorry, Josh, can't agree with you here. There's nothing in Hebbert's notes that remotely suggests that she was split all the way down the middle, whether in stages or otherwise.

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, I'm not saying anything about the width here, just that they extended across both lower torso sections. And so I feel that 1 1/2" above the umbillicus is the minimum vertical extent, not the maximum.

There was a clear border of skin from the vertebrae to the level just above the umbilicus. It's pretty obvious to me what that means.

Also, how can the umbilicus be the minimum vertical extent for the slips of flesh, when we know that they extended to the genitalia?

[Joshua Rogan]

Sorry, Josh, can't agree with you here. There's nothing in Hebbert's notes that remotely suggests that she was split all the way down the middle, whether in stages or otherwise.

Fair enough. But I think Fish's post #3441 contains the parts from Hebbert that clearly show she was.